General Gaming Megathread: What are you playing?

I won Witcher 3 in a contest; so I never really looked at the advertisements. Sadly, I've had W3 installed since day 1, and haven't left the tutorial map; I doubt I've played it thirty minutes. It's just too much like Witcher 2.

Well I bought the Witcher 3 complete edition last year so I had zero contact with the marketing for the DLC so no way for me to take that into account when playing it. I just took a couple of months hiatus from playing Witcher 3 because Heart of Stone really bored me.

To me the archetype of the generic Mephistopheles villain is dull, I find no excitement in stories like that. Just found him uninteresting and I was so tired of HoS that I looked up on his riddle because I just wanted to be done with it so I could try Blood and Wine. The quest inside the portrait was interesting but, from what I saw in the vanilla game, it just seems like a gigantic asspull that clashes with what magic is supposed to be able to do. I don't know if my attempts at choosing the more merciful or clever ways to accomplish Olgfried's tasks had any effect on anything.
You say he is on the level of the Bloody Baron but I really despised that guy, took every opportunity in the vanilla game to antagonize him and not let him have the last word on anything so I am not fond of that character either.

Like I said, it just felt like a big quest mod, and I had already explored a lot of the map doing contracts, destroying nests and searching the Witcher gear so I was just revisisting the same places.

I like the Lennon glasses you get in the Auction tho.

So far I am liking Blood and Wine, the Ducchess is a cool character, I don't know how to feel about the Vampire element yet but I am at least interacting with more characters already, I have new Contracts to hunt critters and I wanna try my hand at them later.

Click to expand...

As far as Mephisto goes...personal preference, I guess. I myself am a fan of Faustian stories, Goethe's Faust I being one of my favorite books, and I appreciated seeing Devil get a proper presentation in a video game that goes beyond the banal horned demon. The archetypal story is very old yet so often poorly done. CDPR managed to make a believable one, if you ask me.
As far as magic goes, Sapkowski's take on magic differs from games' take on magic which differs from specific character groups' take on magic and so on and so on. HoS itself is somewhat of a lore breaker - never has there been a presentation of Devil or omnipotent figure in books (well, there was, once, kinda, but it was very minor) or in previous games - so you can say that the way goetia works in HoS is not "canon". However, CDPR made it quite natural in my opinion, since the tale is basically a part of a medieval Western Europe folklore.
The fact that you aren't fond of Bloody Baron speaks of his quality as a character - I myself didn't like him either - but I appreciate the fact that CDPR wrote a character that made me care enough to dislike him for what he is, and not for what he could have been. I also disliked Olgierd a lot (even though I saved his ass), but that doesn't change my appreciation of the character.

As far as revisiting the same places goes...you're kinda wrong on that one. HoS actually expanded the map. Basically, almost everything norther of Vegelbud Residence was added in HoS. Not quite, but a fair number of characters, areas and monster have been added. Nothing big. I have to remind you tho that HoS is supposed to tie in with the main story - I've explained the chronological placement in the previous post.

Enjoy Blood and Wine. Vampires are a major part of that expansion, but aren't anything new since they were present in the books in and around Toussaint. In any case, expect more vampiric stuff.

I personally grew weary of Contracts at some point, generally speaking. Not because most of them play the same, but because I lost any incentive to do them. My Geralt has 30,000 in gold, why should he risk his life against some basilisk for mere 300 coins?
But I digress...

I won Witcher 3 in a contest; so I never really looked at the advertisements. Sadly, I've had W3 installed since day 1, and haven't left the tutorial map; I doubt I've played it thirty minutes. It's just too much like Witcher 2.

Click to expand...

It's far better than TW2. Has its own share of flaws, but way better made and more enjoyable, at least in terms of gameplay.

It's far better than TW2. Has its own share of flaws, but way better made and more enjoyable, at least in terms of gameplay.

Click to expand...

Ah... but the gameplay was the problem for both... It was too alien from The Witcher, and they discarded what I liked about the series. The combat of the latter two made Geralt—the previously expert swordsman, into a puppet that flails at trees and barrels by slashing whenever the player clicks the mouse. The normally pragmatic Geralt suddenly lost his satchels and started kneeling in the mud to prepare for the unknown, rather than choosing an appropriate potion on-site for the visibly approaching threat.

Gameplay-wise it was nearly as bad as Bethesda's re-imagining of the series gamplay for FO3.

Beat Cuphead and loved every second. The boss I found most difficult was the mermaid, curiously was one of the fastest to win, about 10 tries or so. The boss who gave me the most work was the Queen Bee. My favorite was the King Dice, loved the cigar and the drinks.

Getting to the 100% of Hollow Knight. Sweet fucking game, just for 15$. Only beehive in my ass is how bad I am at platforming so I ususally cheese a lot of it with the trinkets, desvirtuating the experience a bit. Also gonna bail on doing the speedrun and permadeath, I just can't.

Ah... but the gameplay was the problem for both... It was too alien from The Witcher, and they discarded what I liked about the series. The combat of the latter two made Geralt—the previously expert swordsman, into a puppet that flails at trees and barrels by slashing whenever the player clicks the mouse. The normally pragmatic Geralt suddenly lost his satchels and started kneeling in the mud to prepare for the unknown, rather than choosing an appropriate potion on-site for the visibly approaching threat.

Gameplay-wise it was nearly as bad as Bethesda's re-imagining of the series gamplay for FO3.

Click to expand...

I'm a bit confused by the bolded sentence. I'd say TW3 brought back many aspects of TW1 and books that made Geralt act more like an actual witcher, unlike TW3. Then again, I could be understanding your point poorly. Language barriers and all.

As far as your comparison to Bethesda, that's a bit unfair. For one, CDPR is the same company for the most part and they chose to take the series in a somewhat different direction, but not radically different. The better comparison would be if Fallout became an isometric RPG, but not a turn-based one - which Van Buren was supposed to be, IIRC.

I'm a bit confused by the bolded sentence. I'd say TW3 brought back many aspects of TW1 and books that made Geralt act more like an actual witcher, unlike TW3. Then again, I could be understanding your point poorly. Language barriers and all.

Click to expand...

Specifically:

Geralt's combat lost the sword master's multiple styles; which provided (mutually exclusive) advantages against groups, or very strong single opponents.

Geralt lost the ability to choose the best potion on the spot, from a bandoleer; as per the original game.

Geralt's alchemy was horribly simplified; losing the significance of being able to make the same potion with varying ingredients (that had the same alchemical properties, and with bonus potency when the component's secondary properties matched each other). This showed an understanding of alchemical theory, rather than rote cookbook chemistry; knowing what to mix, but not why.

As far as your comparison to Bethesda, that's a bit unfair. For one, CDPR is the same company for the most part and they chose to take the series in a somewhat different direction**, but not radically different. The better comparison would be if Fallout became an isometric RPG, but not a turn-based one - which Van Buren was supposed to be, IIRC.

Click to expand...

I don't think so; in this I believe that both companies radically changed the gameplay of the next game to better suit the middle market. Both Fallout & Witcher series have been forcibly mutated from Iso-style to TPP, and had their gameplay simplified for mass consumption; IMO both solely for popularity sake—despite and contrary to the intents of the original gameplay. In Bethesda's case, they did it again—further diminishing the gameplay even from FO3.

**This is something that companies should not do—not with numbered sequels. I much prefer when companies split the IP with a different series name; else it becomes Bait & Switch—like Bethesda did. Notably Relic did not sell Spacemarine as Dawn of War 2 or 3; and they made both series. (DOW2 is a point of contention; because they did screw up the gameplay by adding RPG elements; ~this is what DOW2 was conceptualized as, but it's not what we got.)

I'm at the last battle in Deathknights of Krynn; wholly unprepared, level drained, and lacking a means of retreat. It's like a mob of fourteen boss monsters, seven of whom launch party killing fireballs as their first attack.

Wait, since when was the first Witcher Isometric? Every gameplay video I've seen is third person comnbat, it just had goofy animations.

Click to expand...

Witcher 1 had a triple camera system. Remember that this is the Aurora engine. Witcher also played like Neverwinter Nights; but with differences in the combat. W1 combat included linked combo-attacks, and additionally included manual dodging, and had animations for side rolls, hops, flips, and pirouettes. There were three fighting styles, that had different movement & attack animations; (meaning you could choose to fight differently against a maul wielding opponent than against a few guys with short swords; differently against a mob of opponents, by using lesser damaging wide swings that hit more than one of them at a time). These styles affected Geralt's combat advantage (or disadvantage) in different situations.

The combat floats are optional, and the gifs are heavily frame reduced.

Hell... he could even push kids out of the way when running :
*Note that this was done in one of the other camera modes.

Looking back at the Witcher, and what they could do in 2007, just makes looking back at FO3 even more of a disappointment, for all the wasted potential they squandered on their franken-shooter. TB combat aside for the moment, just imagine if FO3 had been a Witcher clone, with outside writers brought in for the job; like certain ex FO devs.

I am playing Fallout New Vegas again. Can't beat a classic I guess but I have been more unable to get into some of the games I have recently bought. (the Ys collection)
And I have already finished Metroid Samus Returns which IMO doesn't have that much good replay value.

FNV's age is showing though, I wish it would be remade in a modern engine that doesn't have the flaws and limitations of Gamebryo.

I am also a bit sad that there will never be a game like it ever again. (though I hope Atom will be a good 3rd person TB RPG)

I dislike many of the mechanical changes in the game, and overall some of the segments aren't as tightly intervowen as in DS1 (though far better than in DS2) - however, it all makes a full circle in one of the best series' endings evah.

I dislike many of the mechanical changes in the game, and overall some of the segments aren't as tightly intervowen as in DS1 (though far better than in DS2) - however, it all makes a full circle in one of the best series' endings evah.

*sigh* know what, if I can be arsed, I'll make my attempt of a review and pass it.
Spoiler: Fighting a cool dude on a hill twice in the same game that you don't even know who or what it is isn't an ending.

Y'know what, write a review. Or share your thoughts in a private message. I'm interested, but I never liked vague, fragmented discussion like the one we're having now.
So if you have time, write your thoughts.

Visually, the only thing I think is a little half assed in Cuphead is the representation of your attacks. You just point your finger and shoot energy projectiles. They could've done more with the cartoon aesthetic, like your fingers morphing into a gun barrel, or shooting from the straw Cuphead and Mugman have on their heads.